RME Fireface UFX+ and Thunderbolt 4

[John Ludlow]

Hi all - I am considering upgrading my kit again in order to become more geriatrically mobile. As one does, I'm attempting to identify problems before I spend money and commit. My idea is to switch to a NUC 14 Pro+, which, if you don't know, is a little bitty machine that packs a wallop and weighs under 2 pounds (without its large wall wart). The processor in it has a single core score that is ~50% better than the last machine I built, which had no problems with running out of muscle. And, rare among NUCs, it comes with 2 Thunderbolt ports. I need those, first to connect to my UFX+, and second to do high speed backups.

But there's a potential issue. The UFX+ is built around the thunderbolt 2 protocol - and machines haven't been made that use that for several years. In fact, even when I built my last machine, thunderbolt 3 was the dominant version. The work around at that time was to use a particular TB3 to TB2 converter (a Startech TBT3TBTADAP adapter) to overcome the issue. And that works great. In theory, since TB4 is backwards compatible with TB3 - I should be able to just plug it in between the TB4 NUC and the Startech adapter and then into the UFX+ and all should be well. In fact, Apple users who have tried this have had just that experience.

Unfortunately, according to RME forum participants from several years ago, the PC experience has been more varied. My impression is that the majority have not been able to do this - although perhaps some have. At least one other has to do a little dance when powering up, involving starting one before the other, to get it to work. And, I note, since I bought my UFX+, RME has moved on from thunderbolt altogether and the latest Fireface version is pushing USB3 of all things! But the last post was years ago now - maybe the issue has been resolved and that's why the forum has gone quiet about it?

I was loathe to replace my Fireface 800 with the UFX+, during the last overhaul, because it still worked well and its audio specs were not terribly far behind the latest. But firewire had completely run its course and I had to. I sure hope that my Fireface UFX+ has not now met the same fate so soon.

So, before I immerse myself in RME tech support, I thought I'd check with this, pretty sharp, group to see whether any of you have accomplished this TB4 to TB2 transition for your UFX+ and can give me sage advice.

Anybody?

[mr_es335]

John,

This should be of some assistance...[Click_Me]

Also, this...[Click_Me] ...summation...[if true]

"Accessories built to Thunderbolt and Thunderbolt 2 specifications are not supported by Thunderbolt 4 PCs.

Accessories built to the Thunderbolt 3 specification are fully supported by Thunderbolt 4 PCs.

So, the answer is unfortunately no.. all equipment for Thunderbolt and Thunderbolt 2 will NOT be usable with Thunderbolt 4."

Lastly, there is considerable controversy regarding USB3! Interestingly, with the Behringer UMC1820, I have had no issues whatsoever with USB3! In fact, I am very much amazed!

Hope this helps?

[John Ludlow]

It does indeed, Del. Thanks. But it was a link within that forum exchange that explained it for me:

https://asusproart.medium.com/thunderbo ... d3141cc03f

Essentially - Apple and Intel use a different approach to accomplish TB. Apple's uses software, Intel uses firmware, as a connection manager. Intel discovered a security problem in TB. I suppose Apple could just update the software (if there was ever a problem with their version). Whereas Intel's solution was to get rid of the backwards compatibility between TB3 and TB2. As a result, even some folks who have TB3 ports, and were previously able to use TB2-based devices, suddenly were not able to.

He goes on to describe a complicated work-around involving re-flashing patched firmware that has given him back his original connectivity. But it's over my head. Also, it would require a vendor-specific code snippet downgrade. He provides the one for his machine - but that wouldn't work for the one I am considering.

It sucks that Intel's solution to its own bug is to require the thwarting of the use of all the user hardware that previously worked. Like: "Let them eat cake". Intel sure has gone downhill since back in the day. I'll bet RME is sick of it too. Well, that explains them bugging out of TB altogether. The UFX+ is supposed to work with USB3 too. Maybe I'll try that. But, I'll tell ya - the whole reason I went with a TB interface in the first place was to avoid the USB protocol - which is said not to be tight, whereas TB was. Maybe I'll contact RME support just in case. But I don't have much hope.

By the way, as an aside, if you ever wanted to know why a TB4 cable costs so much, watch this:

https://www.lumafield.com/article/usb-c ... zon-basics

The above is a link to an article about the differences between TB4 cables and why some are $12, while others are $130 (for 3 feet). I've always thought that modern cables were just like cables back in the day: wires connected to pins on each side with a sleeve covering them. It turns out that more expensive cable isn't really just a cable at all. Rather, it's a machine that transports data across a space reliably, in parallel, at throughput speeds that otherwise wouldn't be physically possible. Within the cable, there are a bunch of chips that split the incoming stream of data into several parallel streams on one side, transports them in parallel in multiple wires to the other, and then puts the streams back together again into a single one on the other side - plus wires for power, of course. It uses the hot line to power two tiny transformers to give the rest of the circuitry the correct volts it needs for different portions of the job. It's a complex machine. There are x-ray (or something) videos that show the actual content of the cable. They're amazing. I'll never complain about the cost of cables again.

[mr_es335]

John,

By-the-way, my new laptop-based rig is under 20lbs!

I will send pics when completed.

[John Ludlow]

I'll be interested to see it. ~20 lbs is what I'm going for too. I was thinking a 4u 'soft' rack case with the UFX+ and a Grace m108, a patch bay, and a racked surge protector - plus that little NUC and a monitor, keyboard, and mouse. I'd use the amp/speaker setup that was there (friends places). I'd have 12 quality pre/a2d, 8 more line a2d, and 10 d2a. Enough to do a small 'band'. The rack case is under 15lb, has suitcase wheels and a retractable handle. The NUC is under 2. Not sure about the NUC's wall wart (which is big). The SAC/SAW combo is still pretty powerful in that small configuration. 12 mics, plenty enough extra a2d for a keyboard (the other kind...), guitar amp modeler, or whatever. Mains and 4 individual monitors out. Plus recording capability.

Sadly, I'm long passed my last tour now. My gear doesn't really need to be band-proof. It's not going to get thrown around by others. It just needs to be light and casually portable by me. I miss the quality at others places that I have in my own - and the ability to easily record. And I need to be able to bring it back to the studio and easily re-incorporate it back in with the rest of my, less mobile, stuff there.

Anyway, the TB4->UFX+ issue throws a wrench into that nice dream.

[jmh]

John, even a well laid plan can end in a wreck. An upgrade or two ago I had the same type of issue with my Mackie Onyx Mixer which had served me well. I bought a pcie firewire card known to work for legacy devices with Win10 - but Microsoft dropped support for legacy devices midway through 10. Of course I had no idea until a huge research effort revealed that.

It seems USB functionality has been the longest lived - of course it a crap shoot to extend that thought to usb4 or whatever compatibility it will shares with thunderbolt.

[John Ludlow]

Yeah. As my Jamaican college roommate used to say, "Sometimes it beez dat way mon".

[Macay]

Depending on your exact requirements, an older Mac Mini with an Intel processor might be an alternative to the NUC. The Mac Mini 2014 has Thunderbolt 2 and the Mac Mini 2018 comes with Thunderbolt 3. Both have an internal power supply and the weight is between 2.6 and 2.9 pounds. These older Intel-based models can run Windows 64-bit via Bootcamp.

Here are the specs of the 2014 model: https://support.apple.com/en-us/111931
And this is the 2018 model: https://support.apple.com/en-us/111912
How to install Windows on a Mac: https://support.apple.com/en-us/102622


There are also rack mount kits for the Mini. (Note that the power button of the Mini is located on the back.)


P.S.: I'm the new kid on the block here... :)

[John Ludlow]

Hi Macay - welcome! Well, it sounds like a thoughtful solution. And, it would solve at least part of the problem since Intel wouldn't be involved in the TB code. But the truth is that I'm tired of trying to work around limitations in the hardware and software. I like to buy new computers so that in a few years if I have a working situation I'm satisfied with - I can keep using it. And also so that I can continue to adopt the use of current and future additions to the music space. Things like VSTs and VSTis.

Forever the advice with SAC/SAW was 'use Windows 95' with a processor that has as few cores as possible, running at the fastest processor speed you can find'. At this point, SAC and SAW 64 running on Win 10 are really solid, I think. And we have a way to find processors whose single core speed is sufficient. The availability of all that extra RAM space gets rid of a whole bunch of problems that I used to have. Things with RML software are really good today. I guess I just don't want to go backwards on my computer and OS. I think it's good to have the option to adopt new things, that require modern hardware, if they appeal to me.

So, although I reserve the right to bitch and moan about hardware manufacturers, my solution to this problem will include a modern computer. It may require the purchase of different converters (although I hope not). I'm still kind of holding out hope that somehow RME has figured out a way around the problem. Maybe it will end up being their version of USB3. I've noticed multiple times that they talk about 'RME USB' in their advertising. Maybe that's a way that they have patched Windows USB for RME use. I don't know. I guess I'm going to find out. Unfortunately, it's going to take longer to make this transition than I had hoped, due to the necessary pre-purchase experimentation (bitch, moan...).

But thanks for offering a workable solution.

[jmh]

At this point, SAC and SAW 64 running on Win 10 are really solid, I think. And we have a way to find processors whose single core speed is sufficient. The availability of all that extra RAM space gets rid of a whole bunch of problems that I used to have.

Just out of curiosity, does SAC run on it's own core (or 2 as Studio can)?

John

[cgrafx]

Just out of curiosity, does SAC run on it's own core (or 2 as Studio can)?

John

I believe it's two cores - audio engine on one and interface/GUI on the second core. However, I believe VSTs loaded in SAC/SAW are not restricted to the cores running SAC/SAW.

I have my systems configured to stay off of the 1st core so they also are not competing with the OS

[jmh]

I didn't pose that question properly. I was asking about when they are in use together.

...as in are SAC and SAW both running under the same 1 (or 2) cores?

[John Ludlow]

I'm not really sure. When I did it, I gave SAC and SAW each their own core and, like Philip, and on his advice if I remember, I stayed away from core zero. But... do they stick with what I told them? There's certainly a lot of connectivity between the two somehow since they share the same buffers, which, in my experience, is unusual for executables. But they do have their own exe's and that's the unit of core assignment. So - I'm not really sure. Maybe Philip knows.

[cgrafx]

My understanding is that core affinity assignment is sticky and SAC and SAW are different processes that can be assigned to different cores and should maintain that assignment.

keep in mind that when your using SAW and SAC together that SAC does all the heavy low latency lifting.

[John F]

For what it's worth, John, my mobile rig consists of a rack case that contains 1 power supply, three Behringer ADA 8200 preamps (total of 24 ins and outs) 32 channels of patchbay to route those inaccessible outputs to the front panel, and the suprisingly small 64-channel RME Digiface USB ADAT unit to tie it all together. (the RME is velcro-ed to the inside of the case) This case weighs about 50 pounds, but could be much more manageable if I spent the money to buy a rack case with a built-in dolly. For a computer, I use a very thin Lenovo laptop running a music-optimized version of Windows 11. This rig lets me run both SAC and SAW for live sound plus recording. I also throw in an old camera bag with odds and ends, including a wireless router if I want to be at a distance from the band. In that case, I also bring a Windows Surface computer (running a standard version of Win 11) for me and the remote version of SAC, leaving the Lenovo with the rack case and the router to run the main version of SAC plus SAW for recording.

Like I said, the rack case is heavy, but manageable. Everything can be stowed in the trunk of my small car in just a few minutes.

John Francis
Rolla, MO

[John Ludlow]

Sounds like a nice rig, John F! Too heavy for my old body to move up and down the stairs to the studio - or to want to, at least. Although - it also has more capability than I'm planning for too. I think you're doing it right for routinely doing sound out.